Colman v. Notre Dame Convalescent Home, Inc.
968 F. Supp. 809, 1997 WL 380426, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9790 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a person with a mental disability is generally liable for their intentional torts, they do not owe a duty of care to their paid, professional caregiver for injuries resulting from negligence, as the caregiver is in the best position to anticipate and protect against the risks inherent in their job.
Facts:
- Corrine Colman, who is blind, was employed as a recreational therapist by Notre Dame Convalescent Home.
- Mary Denittis was a resident of the home suffering from senile dementia and had previously been declared incompetent in a probate proceeding.
- It was undisputed that Denittis suffered from severe memory deficit and confusion as a result of her condition.
- On May 17, 1995, while Colman was playing guitar for residents, Denittis wrestled the guitar from her and beat her on the head with it, causing injuries.
- On August 30, 1995, Denittis attacked Colman again, causing her to lose her balance, fall, and injure her spine.
- As a result of the attacks, Colman suffered physical injuries as well as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorders.
Procedural Posture:
- Corrine Colman filed a multi-count complaint in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint included state law claims against Mary Denittis for negligence (count two) and battery (count three).
- Defendant Denittis filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the negligence and battery counts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an institutionalized individual with a mental disability, who is incapable of controlling her behavior, owe a duty of care to her paid professional caregiver to prevent foreseeable harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Goettel, District Judge
No. An institutionalized individual with a mental disability does not owe a duty of care to their paid professional caregiver for injuries arising from negligence. Although the harm was foreseeable, public policy considerations preclude the imposition of a duty. The caregiver, not the patient, is in the best position to guard against the risks inherent in caring for mentally disabled individuals. Imposing liability would serve no beneficial purpose, as the patient was already confined to a restricted facility, and her guardians could do nothing more to prevent harm. However, under established Connecticut precedent, a person with a mental disability may still be held liable for their intentional torts, such as battery. Therefore, summary judgment is granted for Denittis on the negligence claim but denied on the battery claim.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important exception to the general rule that individuals with mental disabilities are liable for their negligent acts. By creating a 'caretaker exception,' the court aligns this area of tort law with principles similar to the 'firefighter's rule,' where professionals who are hired to confront certain risks cannot sue for injuries caused by those very risks. This shifts the legal and financial burden for such injuries from the patient to the caregiver's employer, typically through workers' compensation. The ruling provides protection for vulnerable, institutionalized individuals and their estates from tort liability to the professionals paid to manage their care.
